Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics

  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4   Next

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #16

Andrew Bolt says everything I do. The Left trashing this country paves the way for terrorism. It's the same in Britain. When you are taught nothing positive about the country you live in, and feel no sense of loyalty to it, you have plenty of grounds for terrorism. The Left narrative is shared by Islamists and suits them.

Look at the Robbie Travers incident in Edinburgh. The woman accusing him isn't even Muslim. Look at how Q&A on ABC turned into an anti-British hate-fest featuring Laurie Penny and Shashi Tharoor. Look at the East End of Glasgow part of which seem like an Irish Republican theme park. These things pave the way for global terrorism. It has been for decades.

The failure to recognise the Left's role in all this is staggering.


Posts: 56
Reply with quote  #17 
Enough red baiting, your emotions is blinding you of thinking critically.

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #18 
Typical trope without an original thought from this troll. Why are you even here?

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #19 
Originally Posted by Andrew Bolt
THE Islamists trying to destroy us are bad enough. Worse are the influential activists making Australia seem not worth saving.
Police across Australia are now investigating about 70 terrorism plots, but so far we’ve been lucky.
We haven’t been hit as hard as Britain, which has suffered five serious terrorist attacks this year after last week’s bombing of a London train.
Yet just when an Islamist Right declares us too hateful to live, an activist Left agrees Australia is too hateful to defend.
Last week, for instance, councillor Sue Bolton justified her Moreland council’s decision to scrap Australia Day ceremonies on January 26 by claiming that “celebrating that date would be like celebrating the Nazi Holocaust as Germany Day”.
She explained: “What happened to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from that date was a holocaust.”
It beggars belief that a city councillor could seriously liken the Nazis’ efforts to physically wipe out all Jews — slaughtering six million — with the clumsy and sometimes brutal attempts by British colonialists to live side-by-side with Aborigines.
But Bolton’s idiocy is not the issue. It’s her irresponsibility.
Consider: what is she telling children from immigrant cultures prouder than our own? Surely, it must be that Australia deserves not their loyalty but contempt — and even hatred?
Sure, dismiss Bolton’s rantings as all you’d expect from the Victorian convener of Socialist Alliance.
But she is an elected councillor, and her fellow councillors agree our past is so shameful that, like two other Melbourne councils, they’ve banned celebrating Australia Day on the date of the first British settlement.
What’s more, they belong to a great wave of radical academics, journalists, teachers and Australian Human Rights Commission commissars dumping on Australia.
The AHRC, in its infamous Bringing Them Home report, even claimed white officials were so evil that they stole up to 100,000 children just because they were Aboriginal, in an act of “systematic racial discrimination and genocide”.
Never mind that “stolen generations” propagandists, such as Professor Robert Manne, cannot name even 10 truly “stolen” children and that our courts have found only one — Bruce Trevorrow, stolen from hospital by a social worker actually convinced he’d been abused and abandoned.
Such is the hunger to believe the worst of ourselves that truth does not matter.
Even top politicians, instead, invent fresh falsehoods about our evil. Labor leader Bill Shorten, for instance, this year told parliament “we poisoned the water holes; we distributed blankets infested with diseases we knew would kill”, and not one academic corrected his fake history.
Most bizarre of all, we now have an unprecedented day of national self-loathing — an annual Sorry Day — as if we were a nation of moral criminals.
Meanwhile, in this frenzy to convict ourselves, journalists and activists attack our statues as monuments to racists and our flag as a rag of shame. We even appoint as Australians of the Year people who agree we’re terrible. Adam Goodes claimed we’d had “governments that have ... raped, killed and stolen”.
But when we make Australia seem so hateful, how can we make new arrivals from prouder cultures feel it’s not just worth joining but defending?
I’ve worried about this ever since I dropped in a decade ago on the then Moreland Secondary College to learn why its results were shocking and non-Muslim students were fleeing.
The new principal showed me a video the students had made of themselves, which she thought summed up the school spirit.
“I’m Lebanese,” declared one student in an Australian accent. “I’m Egyptian,” said the next.
“I’m Turkish.”
I, too, enjoy my Dutch background but there are dangers in preaching such division. I learnt later that some students had celebrated the September 11 attacks on the US.
So, to the Leftists who think it moral to vilify their country: you are playing with fire.
Listen to how your absurd hate-speech is being interpreted.
Here is Keysar Trad, former president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, back when he was a translator for a pro-al Qaeda magazine: “The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country ... and the descendants of these criminal dregs tell us that they are better than us.’’
Here is Wassim Douheiri, spokesman for Australia’s Hizb-ut-Tahrir: “Even if a thousand bombs go off in this country, all it will prove is that Muslims are angry and have every right to be angry.”
Why tell such people the lie that Australia is a land of racism and genocide?
Might some not conclude it deserves destruction?

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #20 
Originally Posted by Jennifer Oriel
When politicians conflate free speech and physical harm, people come to believe that violence is a righteous response to free speech. Increasingly, politicians are conflating politically incorrect ideas and violence as part of populist campaigns for social reform.
PC populism is fostering a culture hostile to political dissent and the core principles of liberal democracy.
In the US and Australia, sections of the left have become ­isolationist by rejecting the enabling principles of liberal democracy such as free thought and political diversity.
PEW research found that 44 per cent of Democrats with a college degree or higher said “a friend voting for Trump would put a strain on the friendship”. In the Democrat sample, people who identified more strongly with left ideology were less tolerant of political diversity. A total of 47 per cent of Democrats who identified as “liberal” said finding a friend had voted for Trump would put a strain on their friendship.
By contrast, 73 per cent of Democrats identified as conservative or moderate said a friend voting for Trump would not have any effect on their friendship.
PEW researchers found also that compared with Republicans, Democrat voters are more likely to feel stress when they hear political views that dissent from their own. The researchers concluded that: “A large majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (68 per cent) say they find it to be stressful and frustrating to talk to people with different opinions of Trump. Among Republicans and Republican leaners, fewer (52 per cent) say they find this to be stressful and frustrating.” More women (64 per cent) than men (54 per cent) found it stressful to speak with people who held a different view about Trump.
For decades, free thinkers have warned about the corrosive effect of political correctness on Western culture and democracy. In his best-selling book The Closing of the American Mind, Allan Bloom predicted that politicising the curriculum would rob students of their capacity to reason. As a consequence, they would be ill-prepared to advance democracy.
In Intellectuals and Race, Thomas Sowell analysed the negative impact of race politics on university culture and academic performance. In Tenured Radicals, Roger Kimball demonstrated how political correctness had corrupted the purpose of higher education. Numerous books and studies published since demonstrate the importance of teaching students how to think. Yet the preference for politically correct pedagogy and curriculum persists.
The gradual closing of the Western mind has left the liberal foundations of modern democracy in a state of disrepair. Recent research by the Brookings Institute found that half of undergraduate students think it is acceptable to silence speech they feel is upsetting. Students who vote Democrat are far more likely than Republicans to support silencing speakers they oppose by shouting them down (62 per cent to 39 per cent, respectively). The most alarming finding is that almost one-fifth (19 per cent) of undergraduates think it is acceptable to use violence to silence speakers whose views they oppose.
The claim that free speech causes actual harm is creating a counter-reaction where violence is considered an appropriate ­response to words that offend. The conflation of speech and harm is codified in laws such as section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act. However, the culturally corrosive idea is spreading to other areas of policy and legislative reform.
In the debate over same-sex marriage, left-wing politicians claimed that honouring the electoral commitment to a plebiscite on marriage reform would lead to the suicide of gay youth. Greens leader Richard di Natale said: “We know that if a plebiscite is to go ahead that young people are at risk ... we will most likely see young people take their lives if this plebiscite goes ahead and the hate that will come with that is unleashed.”
Labor leader Bill Shorten led the campaign against a free people’s vote on same-sex marriage by appealing to rank emotionalism. He said: “A No campaign would be an emotional torment for gay teenagers and if one child commits suicide over the plebiscite, then that is one too many.”
As it happens, the people’s vote on marriage reform is under way and free speech has not killed anyone. However, the conflation of dissenting thought and gay suicide has produced a highly charged ­climate where free speech is equated with violence. While there have been serious attacks since the ballots were posted, almost all were committed by Yes voters. A violent assault of a Yes voter allegedly did occur after he tried to stop a man removing same-sex marriage posters. However, in most of the reported incidents, the aggressors were same-sex marriage advocates.
At Sydney University, activists attacked a group of people from various religions who were holding a food stall to discuss the No campaign.
Thousands of people signed an online petition to deregister GP Pansy Lai after she appeared in an advertisement supporting traditional marriage. An employer fired a young woman after discovering her support for traditional marriage online. And last Thursday, former Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, was violently assaulted by an anarchist wearing a Yes vote sticker.
In discussions online, people are justifying attacks on same-sex marriage dissenters using the same rhetoric as Shorten and ­di Natale. They believe that freedom of speech and conscience constitute violence. If politicians lead people to believe that dissenting from same-sex marriage will kill gay youth, it might seem reasonable to strike a political dissident. By conflating same-sex marriage dissent and youth ­suicide, Bill Shorten and Richard di Natale have made it comfortable for people to put on their rainbow colours and attack No voters.
There is a recurrent fantasy among the politically correct that a regime of mental hygiene will protect us from harm. A desire for mental hygiene is invariably a bad omen. In peacetime, it makes people boring. In times of unrest, it ­fosters totalitarian beliefs about human perfectibility. The only forms of speech that should be prohibited are defamation and ­incitement to physical violence. The rest — the good, the bad and the ugly — is the sound of democracy.

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #21 
It’s a sign of our virtue-signalling times that an employer would boast on Facebook about their decision to sack a teenage Christian employee for endorsing the marriage survey’s No side. The sacking and the boasting were abhorrent, but perhaps not surprising to anybody who has watched the growing identity politics phenomenon.
The more puzzling question, however, is the apparent paradox lying behind that phenomenon. Ironically, the more tolerant contemporary Australian society has become overall, the more identity politics we’ve ended up having to endure. By all objective measures, we live in an unprecedented era of tolerance, acceptance and equality for all, compared with the bigoted social attitudes of far less enlightened earlier times.
But although there has never been less racism, sexism, or homophobia — thanks to the social changes that began in the 1960s — there have never been more people claiming the country is allegedly plagued by these social problems.
In recent times, these complaints have spanned the spectrum of identity politics: from Julia Gillard’s misogyny speech; to the offence taken over the late Bill Leak’s “indigenous parenting” cartoon; to the calls on social media last week to boycott Woolworths because the bloke who ran the company a decade ago supports traditional marriage. The rise of identity politics can be explained in part by the malign influence of universities that have embraced postmodern theory in recent decades.
We now have at least one generation of tertiary-educated Australians who have been politicised, and are deeply invested in the identity politics notion that certain groups in society remain the perpetual victims of bigotry and prejudice at the hands of the dominant culture — despite the enormous social changes that make a nonsense of this theory.
Nevertheless, identity politics is integral to the “intellectual left” sense of identity and status as an enlightened class, which not only supposedly possesses superior insight into how society marginalises assorted victim groups but whose members consider themselves morally superior to what they view as the great unwashed, bigoted “ordinary Australians”.
This is why the identity warriors invest so much time and effort finding and backing causes and issues that can validate their identity and status — whether by demanding changes to marriage, or by demanding changes to statues of colonial explorers and governors.
Yet the reason the warriors get traction, and seem to enjoy so much success in contemporary debates, is actually due to the fact social attitudes and values have changed so dramatically.
It has become a secular sin, in most walks of public and corporate life especially, to harbour anything seen as resembling sexist, racist or homophobic views, with the mere perception often leading to social and professional death.
This is the downside and consequence of how much more tolerant society has come, as this can lead to ideological bullying, forcing individuals and organisations into submission behind cultural and political agendas to avoid being labelled bigots.
Think of the grovelling apo­logy Coopers made earlier this year for associating with the anti-marriage equality Bible Society of Australia. Think also of all the education officials who waved the Safe Schools program through without apparently voicing any concerns about greenlighting the indoctrination of Australian chil­dren with radical gender fluidity theories.
Identity politics is really about the politics of moral embarrassment. It is, therefore, ultimately a primitive way of conducting politics.
For all its modern trappings of relativism and non-judgmentalism, identity politics represents a reversion to the shame culture of traditional societies, whereby dissenters face exclusion from the tribe — from the charmed circle of approved progressive opinion — for transgressing politically incorrect taboos.
The way alternative opinions are thereby silenced makes identity politics not only a threat to free speech and democracy but also to the true Enlightenment traditions of rational inquiry and debate.
Yet the notion that the so-called “deplorables” are bigoted oppressors who deserve to have their privilege checked, including their right to freedom of speech, thought and conscience, in the name of promoting equality and diversity, is wearing thin.
Those who are sick of being told they don’t know how to treat others decently, and are tired of being lectured and hectored by their so-called betters, are the people who voted for Donald Trump, for Brexit and, locally, for One Nation. The growing political revolt against political correctness is a warning that the identity warriors should be careful what they wish for lest this lead to the ultimate paradox.
Because of its intolerance towards so-called “intolerants”, identity politics risks becoming a disastrously self-fulfilling prophecy, which will end up fostering ever deeper political and social divisions over issues of race, gender and sexuality.

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #22

NSW Education Minister Rob Stokes’s call for a debate on how schools can better embrace Australian values is gathering support. The call was made after a demand for a global Islamic caliphate was identified in a teacher handbook.
Bella d’Abrera, director of the Institute of Public Affairs’ Western Civilisation Program, yesterday praised the efforts by Mr Stokes to call for a vigorous public discussion on values.
“This is an extremely positive move by the NSW government, and it should be adopted by other state governments,’’ Dr d’Abrera told The Australian.
The call for a core set of values by Mr Stokes for all NSW schools follows a NSW Education Standards Authority investigation into a Bellfield College teacher handbook in Sydney that demanded the establishment of an Islamic caliphate.
Teachers were required to inform students that secularism was the “worst enemy of mankind” and that “peace, stability and justice can only be achieved through the establishment of Islam”. Following the investigation in June, Bellfield College, in Bringelly in Sydney’s west, agreed to remove the references in its new teacher handbook.
But as schools across the ­nation confront the threat of ­extremism, Mr Stokes said there was a need to enshrine basic values, such as upholding democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. Any set of values would not limit existing civil and religious freedoms.
Dr d’Abrera said Mr Stokes clearly understood that it was ­“essential for all members of Australian society to share fundamental values’’.
“All Australian schoolchildren should understand and be taught about values such as equality ­between men and women, religious toleration, and economic and social freedom,’’ she said.
“Teaching our children these values will ensure that they are passed on to the next generation.’’
Victorian schools have introduced a statement of values. Each school’s statement outlines the roles and responsibilities of the school community, including principals, teachers, parents, students, community members and the Victorian government.
Victorian opposition education spokesman Tim Smith said “anyone that’s teaching radical Islam contrary to Australian values shouldn’t be teaching our children’’. “Every kid should leave school with an appreciation of the enormous opportunities that exist in a country like Australia that enshrines freedom and democracy at its core,’’ he said.

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #23

Originally Posted by Gerard Henderson

Yesterday, a female friend of Indian background had the lift door held open for her by a handsome Anglo-Celtic male in a Sydney CBD office tower. She tells me that this is not an unusual event.

However, you would not get this impression if you learned about contemporary Australia by viewing the Australian Human Rights Commission’s “Racism: It Stops With Me” campaign showing on free-to-air television.

There are two taxpayer-funded AHRC advertisements. One features a handsome Anglo-Celtic male who is happy to share a lift with an attractive woman of similar ethnicity, but not with an attractive female of colour. The second depicts a taxi driver refusing to pick up a coloured man who is first in the queue in preference to a white passenger. The ethnicity of the driver is unclear.

This is ponytailed, ad-land talking. The AHRC campaign was launched by Tim Soutphommasane, Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner.

He maintains “racism frequently occurs at work and while people are doing everyday things such as catching a bus, riding a train or flagging a taxi”.

But Soutphommasane provides no evidence that the racism-in-the-lift scenario ever occurred. Moreover, it is my experience from catching cabs in Sydney and Melbourne that many drivers are from Asian, African or Middle Eastern backgrounds. Which ­raises the question: is it racist for a Chinese-Australian taxi driver to refuse to pick up a Sudanese-Australian passenger? Or just unprofessional and rude?

Writing in Fairfax Media newspapers on October 5, Soutphommasane saw a political explanation for what he regards as increasing racism in Western societies.

He declared that a “xenophobia and intolerance are on the rise, fuelled by far-right political movements”.

Now the Race Discrimination Commissioner is a man of the left and it’s convenient for him to blame intolerance on the far right.

This overlooks the fact, in Australia and elsewhere, sections of the far left want to close down debate. And then there is the fact some Islamists in our midst are intent on destroying Western democracy and establishing a caliphate in its place.

Neither stance is compatible with tolerance. Certainly there is xenophobia and intolerance within sections of all societies. But this has little effect on Australia.

A nation is best judged by empirical observation, not by data collected by researchers and promulgated by bureaucrats and academics. This is the reality. Australia has a relatively low level of ethnically motivated crime and a relatively high level of intermarriage (or inter-partnership) between various ethnic groups.

Thirty years ago there was a debate about how “Asian” Australia would be by 2000. The topic was dropped since the offspring of so many Australian citizens had some Asian blood that they could be described only as “Australian”, not “Asian”.

The AHRC has produced evidence about racism experienced by Australians of indigenous and African background. There is no reason to doubt this.

However, as former AHRC president Gillian Triggs told me some years ago, many of the verbal and physical racial attacks that take place in Australia are committed by individuals with mental health problems.

Obviously, such attacks are unpleasant for the recipient. But they are not evidence of endemic casual racism. And they will not be eliminated by TV advertisements. Particularly ones that focus on a life that few Australians experience — such as being employed in CBD office towers.

Right now the debate on race and related topics is becoming quite unhinged in Australia. Take, for example, the performance by Erik Jensen, editor of The Saturday Paper, on ABC TV’s The Drum on October 6. Responding to a point by News Corp Australia journalist James Morrow that, on the AHRC’s own figures, complaints of racial discrimination are declining in Australia, Jensen veritably exploded. He declared that the fact The Drum’s panel was white provided an example of casual racism. By the way, Jensen’s fellow panel­lists were Julia Baird (presenter), Alan Kirkland, Morrow and Alice Workman.

Jensen went on to make the extraordinary claim that “everyone on this panel has a job because they benefit from some kind of racism”. He even said that he was editor of The Saturday Paper on account of racism. In any event, he is not resigning anytime soon.

A similar contribution to the debate was made recently by Monash University academic and ABC and Ten Network presenter Waleed Aly.

Writing in The New York Times on July 27, Aly took exception to Malcolm Turnbull’s decision to create a ministry of home affairs that would subsume the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

Aly told an international readership that the Prime Minister’s decision was “shocking” since he had (allegedly) followed Tony Abbott’s (alleged) “tendency to overhype the threat of terrorism” by creating an overarching national security department.

Note that, following the Boston Marathon attack in April 2013, Aly described terrorism as a “perpetual irritant”.

There was more. Aly accused Turnbull of having “debased immigration in the Australian political imagination”. This was because we now “can chart Australia’s public conception of migration from being a celebrated aspect of its multicultural character … to a threat to be managed”.

What Aly failed to tell New York Times readers was that net migration to Australia was running at more than 200,000 a year — one of the highest rates in Australian history. Yet Aly reckons that the concept of immigration is being debased because the Turnbull government is changing the name of the entity in which the immigration department resides.

Immigration, like other social changes, invariably causes some tensions. But on any reasonable analysis, Australia has handled immigration as successfully as any similar country under both Coalition and Labor governments.

In a sense, Soutphommasane and his colleagues at the AHRC have a vested interest in exaggerating the extent of racism. However, if the problem were as serious as the advertisements make out, then the Race Discrimination Commissioner should be able to run a more compelling case than one that rails against (alleged) racial prejudice at the entry to the CBD office lift.


Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #24 

Identity politics has become a dominating force in history courses offered by Australian universities, with undergraduates more likely to take classes that focus on race, gender or sexuality than the core elements of the ­origins of Western civilisation.
An audit of the 746 history subjects offered across 35 Australian universities this year has ­revealed that 244 — about one-third — focused on identity ­politics, meaning that history was taught from the perspective of a particular interest group, with ­indigenous issues, race and gender being among the most popular themes.
The rise of such subjects, which include “A history of sexualities”, “Masculinities, nostalgia and change” and “Politics of sex and gender” appears to be at the expense of traditional studies in Western civilisation. There were 241 subjects that could be considered core to understanding the history of Western civilisation, such as ancient civilisations, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, or the Cold War.
Only three universities — the University of Notre Dame Australia, Federation University and Campion College — offered a full suite of subjects in that area.
The audit, to be released by the Institute of Public Affairs today, is likely to inflame the long-running history wars and reignite concerns about the decline of history as an academic discipline in this country.
Author Bella d’Abrera, director of the institute’s Foundations of Western Civilisation Program, described the trend as “dangerous”, blaming academics, including historians, who have “become obsessed with what ­divides Australia rather than what unites us”.
Dr d’Abrera said direct consequences of the rise of identity politics included the emergence of the so-called “snowflake generation” — a term used to describe young adults quick to take ­offence — as well as the push to scrap January 26 Australia Day celebrations and change the name or wording on certain statues and monuments.
“The past three years in particular has seen the emergence of trigger warnings, safe spaces, male privilege workshops and rooms designated for some but not others,” she said.
“And it’s directly correlated with the rise in identity politics.”
According to the research paper, The Rise of Identity Politics — An Audit of History Teach ing in Australian Universities in 2017, identity politics is the idea that ­individuals are best defined by their collective identities rather than their individuality.
“It reduces the complexity of the past into this basic idea of race, gender and sexuality,” Dr d’Abrera said.
“How can we reduce the ­Renaissance to that? Or the ­industrial revolution to this idea of a male privilege that oppressed people?
“It’s a big problem that means when people finish their history degrees they don’t necessarily know what happened in the past. Or they have this idea that everything that happened was due to a struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed.”
Melbourne University’s head of historical and philosophical studies, Trevor Burnard, said universities were keen to offer subjects that were relevant and popular, and said there were elements of identity politics within some of the courses offered by the faculty, such as the history of gender and class relations, for example, in British history.
But he disputed the claim that identity politics was a dominant theme in history courses.
“We, as most Australian universities, offer a very traditional curricula, even if often taught in untraditional ways,” he said.
“Our first-year subjects … are all subjects that could have been taught to first years as subjects for the last half century without raising eyebrows.”
The University of Notre Dame’s head of history, Deborah Gare said she thought identity politics would have been more prevalent across the curriculum, given it was designed to not only teach core content and theory but also be socially relevant.
“We do need to teach the key events, themes, dates, people and outcomes — absolutely. But we also need to try to understand how and why they happened,” Professor Gare said.
“And while it’s important to know about the ‘great men’ of history, it’s also important to know about the experiences of the ­others around them; those outside the ruling classes; women; those of minority faiths, and that takes digging deeper.”
Dr d’Abrera said Australian ­society owed its prosperity and success to the developments and achievements of Western civilisation.
“Students are not being given the opportunity to learn about and understand that these are the essential features of our free ­society,’’ she said.
Third-year student Leah Walker, of Kwinana south of Perth, said she appreciated studying Western civilisation in her first year at Notre Dame because it gave her a solid grounding for her further studies. “Some history units might spend one week on ancient Rome, for example, whereas we studied it for 13 weeks,” the 21-year-old said. “I ­really enjoyed that; learning more about the world and how the past has shaped where we are today. I think it’s essential.’’

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #25 
The history and substance of Western civilisation that are essential to understanding our present and shaping our future are not being taught to history undergraduates.
Instead, the focus of a typical undergraduate history degree has shifted from the study of significant events and subjects to a view of the past seen through the lens of the identity politics of race, gender and sexuality.
The Institute of Public Affairs’ audit of the 746 history subjects offered in 35 universities - The Rise of Identity Politics: An Audit of History Teaching at Australian Universities - has shown that the movement that sought to infuse the humanities curriculum across the Anglosphere with identity politics has come to ­fruition.
Identity politics encapsulates two main ideas.
The first is that an individual’s political position (and many other things, such as moral worth) is defined by their identity. The second is the way in which a person is to be treated is decided according to that person’s identity.
The suspicion that history as an academic discipline has been successfully hijacked by left-wing cultural theorists is no longer hearsay or speculation. The audit reveals that at least 244 of the 746 history subjects belong to the social sciences. History departments are replete with subjects that examine the study of human society and social relationships, not historical events or periods. Take for example Gendered Worlds: An Introduction to Women’s and Gender Studies at the University of NSW; Masculinity, Nostalgia and Change offered at the University of Western Australia; Monash University’s Nationality, Ethnicity and Conflict; and the University of New England’s Being Bad: Sinners, Crooks, Deviants and ­Psychos.
None of these subjects belongs in a history department.
In comparison, of the 746 subjects on offer, just 241 explain the material and technological pro­gress and belief systems of Western civilisation.
That there are fewer subjects devoted to what can be termed as the essential core topics of Western civilisation than social science topics is evidence the humanities have been captured by the left-wing exponents of identity politics.
Alternatively, where the essential core is taught, the audit has shows there is a large disparity between the topics covered. For example, the most widely taught topics are ancient Greece (58), World War I (53), World War II (53) and Nazism/fascism/communism (48). The Middle Ages (38), the Renaissance (30) and any subject of British history (17) are comparatively under-represented.
This means the option to learn about significant historical events and periods that took place in the intervening millennia is unavailable to most history undergraduates in Australia.
Those students graduating with an undergraduate degree in history will emerge from university with a distorted ultra-­thematic view of the world, past and present, in which we are divided into oppressors and the ­oppressed.
Indeed, there is a direct correlation between the proliferation of trigger warnings, cultural appropriation and safe spaces (which are rapidly becoming the norm on campus) with the identity politics being propounded in the classroom.
The more that students are taught to view history in terms of identity politics, which by its ­nature is divisive, the more it will manifest on campuses across Australia, creating inequality where there is none.
The modern professoriate has in this case repudiated the great humanist tradition on which most of Western civilisation and the Western university has been built.
That tradition was founded on an all-consuming desire to engage with the genius of the past.
A university should be a place where ideas are exchanged and reason is practised. By shutting down freedom of speech, silencing debate or censoring course materials, the universities are encouraging a highly censorious, highly politically correct culture that is harmful to the mission of education which justifies the universities’ existence. History is now treated as a science, where class has been replaced by the identity politics of gender, race and sexuality.

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #26 
The Institute of Public Affairs’ forensic analysis of how history is now taught in our universities proves, once again, that the cultural left now controls the academy. And as I argued in Why Our Schools Are Failing, the left’s long march has been ongoing for years.
University humanities departments once were committed to a liberal view of education, one described by TS Eliot as involving the “preservation of learning, the pursuit of truth, and in so far as men are capable of it, the attainment of wisdom”.
Central to a liberal education is the recognition that the grand narrative associated with Western culture, for all its shortcomings and faults, is a story worth acknowledging and celebrating as it distinguishes the civilised from the barbarian and the educated from those remaining in ignorance.
The peace and prosperity we now take for granted and the fact that our legal and political systems enshrine the inalienable right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are products of this narrative — one that began with the philosophers and sophists of ancient Greece and Rome and that embraces Judeo-Christianity and epochal historical events such as the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the Reformation. As argued by Allan Bloom, a liberal education is based on the deepest thinkers of the past on the basis that “their works constitute a body of learning which we must preserve in order to remain civilised”.
Such is no longer the case. Beginning in the late 1970s and early 80s, the cultural left in England, the US and Australia attacked this liberal view of education as imperialistic, elitist, patriarchal, misogynist, racist and inequitable.
As noted by the American academic Christopher Lasch, instead of education involving a “universal transcendent truth”, the cultural left argues it simply cloaks the self-serving power of “white Eurocentric males”.
Australia’s John Carroll makes a similar point when he argues that universities no longer embrace the type of rationality and objectivity exemplified by “the Western tradition since classical Greece”.
Instead, cultural relativism prevails and subjects like art, literature, music and history are deconstructed in terms of power relationships and, as noted by Carroll, “exposed as rationalisations for entrenched wealth and privilege”.
In relation to history, the result is that graduates have an episodic, fragmented and doctrinaire understanding of the past. Even worse, many become teachers in schools where students are indoctrinated with a politically correct view of Australia’s history and the debt owed to Western civilisation.
Given the threat of Islamic fundamentalism it is also true that at the very time Western civilisation should be celebrated future generations remain either ignorant or hostile to what makes us unique and what must be defended.

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #27 
Former prime minister John Howard says the rise of identity politics in history courses at Australian universities is placing issues such as gender and race “centre stage” at the expense of students’ basic understanding of modern society.
Mr Howard said he was not surprised by research released yesterday that suggested identity politics had become a dominating force in university history courses, with undergraduates more likely to take classes that focus on race, gender or sexuality than on the core elements of the ­origins of Western civilisation.
“I think the report is a reminder of how much identity politics has encroached upon Australia’s universities. I don’t argue that such things as gender and race are irrelevant — of course they are not irrelevant — but they have assumed centre stage, according to that report, to the detriment of understanding and knowledge,” he said.
“I don’t know how you can understand modern society without, for example, having proper and full understanding of the Enlightenment. And the Western world without a proper understanding of the influence of ­Judaeo-Christian ethics.
“It’s precisely the drift towards identity politics identified in the report (that) the late Paul Ramsay had in mind when he decided that he wanted to establish a centre for Western civilisation,” Mr Howard said.
The former prime minister is the chairman of the Centre for Western Civilisation, established at the request of healthcare and media entrepreneur Paul Ramsay, who died in 2014.
Education Minister Simon Birmingham weighed in on the debate yesterday, saying universities “should be places that facilitate debate and challenge ideas, but that shouldn’t come at the expense of learning about historical facts.”
Australian Catholic University senior research fellow and the co-chairman of the national curriculum review Kevin Donnelly said the audit, conducted by the Institute of Public Affairs, was a “shocking indictment” on the tertiary education sector.
“I’d also argue it’s happening in other subjects like literature and sociology, it’s not just history,” he said.
The Centre for Western Civilisation is working with two universities in NSW and the ACT to deliver a three-to-four-year undergraduate course, which they hope to roll out at the beginning of 2019, called the bachelor of arts (Western civilisation).
Centre chief executive Simon Haines said he hoped the course would promote the study of the establishment and development of Western civilisation and could combat the notion that the West was “barbaric and decadent”.
Lecturers and historians yesterday defended their courses.
Australian National University history professor Frank Bongiorno said the courses he had taught throughout his career were wide in scope and not ideologically driven. “I don’t think courses slot so easily into the categories (report author) Bella D’Abrera thinks they do,” he said.
Professional Historians Australia president Jill Barnard said: “It’s the skills and the scholarly sort of methods that are important in university history courses.”

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 650
Reply with quote  #28 
A BA (Western Civilization) simply should be an element of ALL university courses (regardless of principal subject taken) as an element at compulsory subject level, a fail in said subject SHOULD render any other degree taken alongside, a second or third class one at best, if not an outright failure of the course entirely.
Yours Sincerely Queenslander

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #29 
Originally Posted by Janet Albrechtsen
Bad ideas flourish in dark places. The Rise of Identity Politics: An Audit of History Teaching at Australian Universities in 2017, ­released on Monday by the Institute of Public Affairs, exposes the dirty ­little secret about history teaching in Australian universities. Rather than rigorous learning about ­important historical events that underpin our dem­o­cracy, history teaching in this country is drenched in identity politics.
Worse, this distortion of history into political ideology is a bellwether of a more profound political disorder that threatens the future of our Australian liberal project.
In a healthy liberal democracy, we contest ideas and we know our democracy is in good shape when the best ideas triumph and the bad ones are sent packing. The Berlin Wall wasn’t dismantled by soldiers but by ideas about individual freedom that appealed more than communism. Today a different menace threatens our democratic health, one that seeks to dismantle our tool for trouncing bad ideas. We’re not just quibbling over different ideas; we’re also arguing over the value of having a healthy contest of ideas. Skewed history teaching is symptomatic of a contest that will determine the future of our democratic project.
The audit by Bella d’Abrera — director of the IPA’s Foundations of Western Civilisation Program and who has a PhD in history from Cambridge University — of 746 history subjects taught across 35 Australian universities found that more subjects (244) focus on the politics of indigenous issues, other race topics, questions of gender, environment and identity than the story of Western civilisation. More history subjects mention race than the Enlightenment by a factor of four to one. The Reformation is cited in only 12 of the 746 subjects and liberalism is mentioned only seven times. More subjects reference Islam than Christianity.
Drawing on work done by British historian Niall Ferguson, who is professor of history at Harvard University, the IPA prepared a list of 20 core topics in the history of Western civilisation. They include ancient Rome, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Reformation, any period of British history, the US revolution, the industrial revolution, Nazism, fascism, communism and the Cold War, and more. The IPA audit found a strong focus on ancient Greece and ancient Rome and the 20th century, “while the events of the intervening millennia are relatively neglected”. In other words, the great historical heritage that built our liberal democracy is not offered by many history ­departments.
Writing online for The Conversation on Thursday, Trevor Burnard, head of school and professor of history at University of Melbourne, rebuked the audit as misguided, arguing that history depart­ments faced two problems: limited funding and students who weren’t interested in Western civilisation. Referring to his own speciality, Burnard wrote: “The reason British history is less taught now than it once was has little to do with politics, and everything to do with student preferences. I would love for students to be fascinated in what I am interested in. Some are. But most aren’t.”
If students arrive at university with little curiosity about the historical triumph of freedom, it’s ­because we haven’t passed on that legacy to them. Students aren’t taught the astonishing story of Western civilisation at school or university. And the adult realm of politics is equally useless.
As IPA executive director John Roskam writes in Audit of History Teaching, we’re in trouble when a senior Liberal MP, federal Treasurer Scott Morrison, waves away the most fundamental freedom in a liberal democracy, freedom of expression, as something that “doesn’t create a single job (and) doesn’t open a business”.
When Gillian Triggs, the former boss of the Australian Human Rights Commission entrusted to defend fundamental freedoms, scolded Australia as a country where “Sadly, you can say what you like around the kitchen table at home”, we’re in double trouble.
And taxpayer-funded public broadcaster ABC, committed to all kinds of diversity except a diversity of voices, signals a preference for ideological homogeneity, not a healthy contest of ideas that emerged from the Enlightenment.
As Roskam says, this contest of ideas gave us a “legacy of liberty, of inquiry, of toleration, of relig­ious plurality, and of social and economic freedom. Western civilisation pioneered the recognition of universal human rights.” He quotes Rufus Black, the master of Ormond College at the University of Melbourne, in The Importance of a Liberal and Sciences Education: “The triumph of freedom and reason is not a law of physics, it is just an idea that has captured our minds for a tiny period of human history. There is no certainty it will continue to do so unless we choose to argue for its values and ensure that we pass it on as it was passed on to us, hard won from authoritarian rule of many forms.”
The historic battles, physical and metaphysical, that shaped our modern liberal project, where we are all equal, regardless of skin colour, creed, sex or sexuality, should be the foundation stone of every history department across Australian campuses. Instead, history teaching is mired in the politics of race, sex, sexuality and identity.
This intellectual regression has its roots in postmodernism, and identity politics has become its political arm. Under the dishonest rubric of “progressive” politics, postmodernism cemented into universities the notion that history and language are corrupted by those who hold power. Ergo history needs to be told through the lens of oppression and language needs to be proscribed to protect victims of the oppressors.
Under the same sham of protecting people, universities are now cottonwool campuses. Last week at Cambridge University, students were given a trigger warning about Shakespeare’s play Titus Andronicus. The Bard’s work has been added to a growing list of literature — F. Scott Fitzgerald, Virginia Woolf, Ovid and Euripides — now deemed offensive by coddled students and muddled academics. Last week To Kill a Mockingbird was removed from a school district in Mississippi because it also offends students. A decade ago, this anti-intellectualism would have been unthinkable.
Determined to police words and speech, proponents of identity politics label opponents as racists, sexists, misogynists, homophobes and Nazis. The aim is to drive a spoke into that critical piece of ­intellectual machinery known as the marketplace of ideas because critical thinking threatens their ­regressive ideas.
Worse, the demand of identity politics that people be treated differently according to race, sex, sex­uality and other forms of identity threatens the core premise of our liberal project that all individuals are of equal moral worth. It’s a staggering inversion of the great civil rights battles of the past century, and a reminder that when people are ill-informed about the past, they are likelier to ­embrace a less liberal future. The latest Lowy Institute Poll where only 52 per cent of people aged ­18 to 29 believe that “democracy is preferable to any other kind of government” is not shocking, it’s inevitable.
Halting the momentum of ­regressive identity politics depends on an intellectual army of iconoclasts who understand that the story of our liberal project must be learned, defended and passed on to the next generation. We need free thinkers such as Camille Paglia, the feminist who, this month, exposed how women’s and gender studies departments came to be “frozen at a certain point of ideology in the 1970s”. Only a radical will ask, what has gender studies contributed to the sum of human knowledge? And rebels such as Jonathan Haidt, the American social psychologist leading the push for universities to reclaim their positions as places of intellectual curiosity. And Lionel Shriver, too, the American author who ­exposed the fundamental flaw of identity politics during her past visit to Australia: “I don’t believe that membership of a larger group constitutes identity. I don’t think being female provides me with an identity. I don’t think it means that I have a character. That’s not my idea of what character is.”
In his recent book, The Strange Death of Europe, British author Douglas Murray traces the triumph of cultural masochists — “only the nations of Europe and their descendants allow themselves to be judged by their lowest moments”. This pathology of guilt has led to a “guilty, jaded and dying culture” in Europe and this virus is spreading across the West.
And let’s not mince words. When the heritage of Western civilisation is devalued in Australian schools and university history departments, debased by our political parties and human rights ­bureaucracies, and snubbed by sections of the media too, it becomes a numbers game. I joined the IPA years ago because the ­voices of freedom need critical mass so that the virtues of freedom can be nurtured, defended and passed on to the next generation to do the same. The way forward is to instil in each generation an understanding that our great inheritance comes from the story of Western civilisation. That’s why Roskam and his team at the IPA are ­engaged in this critical contest of ideas that must not be dismantled by the self-loathing politics of identity. Consider this a call to arms.

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #30 
John Howard, Kim Beazley and Stephen Harper attending this:
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.